Criminal Appeals Archives - Page 8 of 20

C-2015-514

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 27, 2016
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2015-514, Hanks appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse and Malicious Injury to Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but remanded the case to determine if Hanks was mentally ill, which would affect the costs he was assessed. One judge dissented. Hanks had pleaded guilty to two counts of Domestic Abuse and one count of Malicious Injury to Property in a state court. The judge sentenced him to three months in jail for one charge and one year suspended for the other two. He was also required to pay fines and fees. After entering his plea, Hanks tried to withdraw it, claiming he did not understand what he was doing and that he had poor legal help. The court looked at whether Hanks had made his plea knowingly and voluntarily. They found that he understood what he was doing and that his mental issues did not prevent him from understanding his plea. The court also considered Hanks' claim that his lawyer did not help him properly during the process and found no evidence to support this. One important point in the decision focused on the costs Hanks had to pay related to his time in jail. The court noted that because he had a mental illness diagnosis, he might not have to pay these costs according to state law, which says that mentally ill people should be exempt from such fees. Because of this, the court sent the case back for further evaluation of Hanks' mental health status to see if he qualified for the exemption. Overall, the court upheld the original decision while allowing for further examination of Hanks' mental health to understand his financial obligations better.

S-2015-87

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 14, 2016
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-87, Donna Long and Lillian Shipman appealed their conviction for Financial Exploitation by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma charged Long and Shipman with financially exploiting Shipman's mother-in-law, who had passed away. The case revolved around two checks signed by the mother-in-law shortly before her death. The first check was for $5,500, and the second check was for $250,000, which the defendants deposited. During the preliminary hearing, the judge found that the evidence did not support the State's claims that the defendants were caretakers or that they exploited the deceased. The judge noted that while there were checks involved, there wasn't enough proof that Long and Shipman acted improperly or had bad intent in obtaining these checks. Both defendants filed motions to quash the information, claiming there was not enough evidence for the case to continue. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to prove their guilt. The case was then appealed to a higher court, which reviewed the lower court's decision. The higher court concluded that the lower court did not make an error and affirmed the dismissal of the charges against Long and Shipman, agreeing that there was insufficient evidence presented during the preliminary hearing to justify proceeding with the case. In summary, the case focused on whether the defendants financially exploited their relative, but the court found the evidence lacking, leading to the dismissal of the charges.

RE-2014-371

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 6, 2016
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-371, Holland appealed his conviction for Rape in the Second Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the revocation order regarding his suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Holland pleaded guilty to a crime and received a sentence that included five years of imprisonment, but with some of that time suspended as long as he followed rules set by the court. However, he did not follow these rules, such as reporting to his probation officer and attending required treatment. Because of this, the court revoked his suspended sentence and ordered him to serve the full five years. Holland felt the punishment was too harsh and claimed he had tried to follow the rules. He argued that he should not have to serve the full five years because only a part of that sentence was supposed to be enforced. The court looked carefully at his claims. They found that Holland had not fully complied with the rules he agreed to follow, and therefore, they believed the judge was correct in deciding to revoke his suspension. However, they agreed that the judge had made an error when stating he had to serve five years in prison since he had already served part of that time. Ultimately, the court decided to change the revocation order so that Holland would only need to serve four years and eleven months, which is the remaining part of his original sentence. The court confirmed their decision and instructed the District Court to make the necessary changes.

F-2014-870

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 22, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-870, Ricco Dante Walters appealed his conviction for possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of drug paraphernalia but reversed the conviction for possession of a firearm after a former felony conviction with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

S-2015-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 8, 2015
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-446, James Leonard Martinez appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and operating without mud flaps. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's ruling that suppressed evidence in the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Officer Porter stopped Martinez's vehicle because he believed it lacked the required mud flaps, which the officer thought was a violation of the law. However, the trial court found that Martinez's car had fenders, and according to the statute, if a vehicle has fenders, it does not need mud flaps. Thus, the officer's stop was not justified. The State argued that even if the law did not apply to Martinez's vehicle, Officer Porter had a reasonable but mistaken belief about the law when he stopped Martinez. However, the trial court ruled that the officer's misunderstanding of the law was not reasonable because the law's language was clear. The court reviewed the officer's actions and concluded that he made a mistake of law, which means he misunderstood the actual law regarding mud flaps. Because of this, the court agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress evidence gathered during the stop and to dismiss the case against Martinez. Ultimately, the court confirmed that the stop was not lawful and upheld the trial court's ruling.

PC-2015-6

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 3, 2015
Post category:PC

In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.

F-2014-698

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 28, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-698, Weimer appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder (Child Abuse). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the order of restitution. One judge dissented. Weimer was found guilty after a jury trial in Comanche County and was sentenced to life in prison. He also had to pay restitution of $6,395. During his appeal, Weimer claimed several issues. He argued that evidence from the Medical Examiner's office was not valid because the office was not accredited. He also said that he could not present his defense properly and that he could not confront the witnesses effectively. Another issue was his complaints about gruesome photos shown during the trial, saying they made the trial unfair. Weimer's defense team also argued that not letting the jury visit the crime scene was unfair and that the restitution amount was not backed by real evidence. Lastly, he expressed that the total mistakes during the trial made the whole process unfair. The court reviewed each of Weimer's points. They decided that even though the Medical Examiner's office was not accredited, it did not make the evidence inadmissible. They also ruled that Weimer was able to defend himself properly and that he was not unfairly restricted in doing so. The court allowed the autopsy photos because they were relevant to the case. Regarding the jury's visit to the crime scene, the court agreed with the trial judge that it was not necessary. On restitution, the court found the trial judge had not given a clear basis for the restitution amount, which led to the decision to vacate the order and send it back to the lower court for further evaluation of the actual loss. In the end, the court found no errors in the trial that would require a new trial. Therefore, they affirmed Weimer's conviction but sent the case back for more work on the restitution amount because there wasn't enough evidence to support it. One judge disagreed with part of the ruling about the Medical Examiner’s office not being accredited but agreed with the final result of the decision.

RE-2014-810

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 9, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-810, Simpson appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Simpson's suspended sentence but vacated the imposition of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented. Simpson had entered a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in 2013 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence. His sentence was suspended as long as he followed the rules of probation. However, in 2014, the State accused him of violating these rules by committing a new offense of possession of a controlled substance. After a hearing, the judge decided to revoke Simpson’s suspended sentence and send him to jail for ten years. Simpson raised three main issues in his appeal. First, he argued that the judge's decision to revoke the whole sentence was too harsh given his situation. He was struggling with drug addiction and believed that this should be taken into account. However, since he had previously had several felony convictions and had violated the terms of his probation, the court did not find this argument convincing. Second, Simpson claimed that the judge should not have added post-imprisonment supervision to his sentence after revoking it. The law states that this supervision is required only for those who are in prison after being sentenced, which was not the case for Simpson at the time of his original sentencing. Therefore, the court agreed with Simpson and removed the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision. Lastly, Simpson noted that he had already served ten days of his sentence before it was revoked and argued that the judge should not have ordered him to serve a full ten years in prison. The court acknowledged that the judge had indeed made an error by ordering a full ten years instead of the correct amount of nine years and 355 days, taking into account the time already served. In summary, the court upheld the revocation of Simpson’s suspended sentence, meaning he would go to prison. However, they corrected the total time he needed to serve to reflect the time he had already completed, and they took away the added supervision requirement after his prison term.

J-2015-353

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

C 2014-920

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 27, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-920, John Edward Oxford appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided to deny his appeal but also ordered a hearing to review the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay. Oxford was charged with multiple counts and, on July 10, 2014, he entered a blind plea, which means he pleaded guilty without negotiating a deal, to all the charges. The court sentenced him to a total of over 70 years in prison and ordered him to pay about $67,539 in restitution to the victims. After his sentencing, Oxford tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he did not understand the charges and was not fully informed about his rights. The trial court held a hearing on this and ultimately denied his request. Oxford then appealed this decision, arguing several points. First, he believed he should not have been sentenced for certain counts because it violated laws against double punishment. However, the court noted that his arguments about double jeopardy were not raised in the earlier stages and thus were not considered. Second, he argued there wasn't enough evidence to support the restitution amount, but again the court found this issue had not been raised before and rejected it. Oxford also claimed he did not receive effective legal help during his plea and the hearing to withdraw it. The court agreed that there were problems with how his attorney handled the restitution order, focusing mainly on the lack of detailed documentation justifying the restitution amount. This lack of evidence meant the restitution order was not valid. While the court found that Oxford's guilty plea was made voluntarily, it did acknowledge inadequate support for the restitution order. Therefore, it denied his appeal regarding the guilty plea but vacated the restitution order, sending the case back to the lower court for a proper review of how much compensation was truly owed to the victims. One judge dissented, noting that the case should have been looked at more closely regarding the earlier claims. So, in summary, the appeal was mainly denied except for the part about restitution, which was sent back to the lower court for further review.

RE 2014-0536

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 4, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2014-0536, Matthew Carl Eddings appealed his conviction for Possession of a Controlled Substance and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of Eddings' suspended sentence. One judge dissented. Eddings was originally given a deferred sentence with rules for probation and fines for his crimes. However, over the years, he struggled to meet the conditions of his probation, which included paying fines and child support. The state moved to revoke his sentence because of these issues. When the court reviewed Eddings' case, they found enough evidence to support the revocation. Eddings had not made required payments for over a year and had not shown a good faith effort to comply with the rules. The court also noted that since there were new facts presented during the latest revocation hearing, the principle of res judicata, which prevents re-judging the same issue, did not apply. However, there was an issue identified with an added requirement for supervision after imprisonment. The court agreed that the requirement for one year of supervision after his sentence was not appropriate, as new laws did not apply to his case. In conclusion, while Eddings’ suspended sentence was revoked, the court ordered that the requirement for post-imprisonment supervision be removed.

RE-2014-575

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 21, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-575, Jason Duane Barnes appealed his conviction for violating his probation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the decision to revoke his suspended sentences. The judges noted that the evidence was not enough to support the revocation because the prosecution failed to show that the judgment related to his new crime was final. One judge dissented.

F-2014-889

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 17, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-889, Klayton Jordan Kitchens appealed his conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to marijuana possession but affirmed the other convictions. The events leading to the case began when the police served a search warrant at Kitchens' home in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found methamphetamine and marijuana. They initially found meth but returned later with a new warrant, where they found both drugs and drug paraphernalia in his room. Kitchens argued that having two convictions for possession of different controlled substances violated the law against double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be punished for the same offense twice. The court agreed, stating that both drugs were found as part of one act—meaning one violation of the law. Therefore, he should not have been punished twice for the two different drugs since they were found in the same piece of furniture. On the other hand, Kitchens also argued that the judge made a mistake by making his sentences run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The court disagreed, saying that it was within the judge's authority to decide how the sentences should be served, and there wasn't enough reason to change this decision. In summary, the court reversed the conviction for possession of marijuana since it felt that Kitchens should not be punished twice for the same action, but it upheld the decision on the other drug offenses. The case was sent back to the lower court just for that change.

F-2014-336

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 15, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-336, Deandre Bethel appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Robbery with a Firearm, Transporting a Loaded Firearm in a Motor Vehicle, and Public Intoxication. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for First Degree Felony Murder and the other charges except for Robbery with a Firearm, which was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss that charge. One judge dissented. Bethel was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County for crimes related to the death of a victim during a robbery. The jury sentenced him to life in prison for murder, along with additional sentences for the other charges. During the appeal, Bethel raised several issues, arguing that there was not enough evidence for his convictions, that he should not be punished for both murder and robbery based on the same incident, and that he did not receive a fair trial for various reasons, including how the jury was instructed and what evidence was allowed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of murder and upheld that conviction. However, they agreed that having separate convictions for robbery and murder from the same act violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, so they reversed the robbery conviction. Bethel also argued that the trial court made errors in not instructing the jury about lesser offenses and in handling jury questions, but the court found these claims did not warrant a new trial. Other claims, such as the admission of jail phone calls and victim impact statements, were also rejected. In the end, the court affirmed the convictions for murder and the other charges, but dismissed the robbery charge, allowing Bethel to focus his appeal on the correct aspects of his case.

C 2014-693

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 9, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2014-693, a person appealed his conviction for child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea due to receiving bad advice from his attorney, which made his plea not knowing and voluntary. One judge dissented.

F-2014-22

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 9, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-22, Padillow appealed his conviction for rape and sexual offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but reversed a citation for direct contempt of court and vacated the associated sentence. One judge dissented. Earnest Eugene Padillow faced serious charges in two cases related to the sexual abuse of young girls. The first case involved the abuse of his nine-year-old great-niece, S.G., during a single day in August 2007, and the second case involved the sexual assault of his 11-year-old niece, D.P., in 2011. In both instances, Padillow was accused of serious crimes, including rape and inappropriate sexual contact. During the trial, Padillow had a tumultuous relationship with his attorneys. He expressed dissatisfaction with their defense strategies and at times chose to represent himself. This led to a chaotic scene in the courtroom where Padillow violently attacked one of his attorneys, resulting in his removal from the courtroom. Despite his outbursts, the trial proceeded, and he was found guilty. The court sided with the trial judge's decision that Padillow waived his rights to be present during certain trial stages due to his disruptive conduct. Padillow also claimed that his constitutional right to testify was violated when he was removed from the courtroom. However, the court ruled that his violent actions constituted a waiver of that right. In another point of contention, Padillow argued that he should have been given the chance to respond to a direct contempt charge when the judge found him guilty of contempt for his outburst. Although the court acknowledged he did not have the opportunity to be heard, they decided to reverse the contempt finding rather than require a new hearing given the context of his other convictions. Lastly, it was determined that some of the judgment documents contained errors regarding sentences, which the court directed to be corrected. Overall, the court upheld the significant portions of Padillow's convictions while addressing some procedural errors related to his contempt citation and record-keeping in the judgments.

F 2014-3

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 26, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-3, Edwin Jermaine Daniels appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the trial court's decisions but did vacate some of the fines associated with his sentences. One judge dissented. During the trial, Daniels was found guilty of multiple counts connected to violent crimes he committed with a co-defendant. The judge sentenced him to a total of many years in prison and imposed fines for each count. Daniels raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there were mistakes made during his trial that affected the fairness of the process. First, he claimed that the jury instructions were confusing and reduced the State’s burden to prove guilt. The court found that since there were no objections to the instructions during the trial, they did not affect the trial's result. Second, Daniels objected to being told the fines were mandatory, but the court found that this was also a mistake that the State admitted to; thus, the fines were removed for certain counts. He also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that comments made by the prosecutor during the trial unfairly influenced the jury. The court ruled that these comments did not significantly change the trial's outcome. Daniels further contended that he did not receive effective legal assistance. The court concluded that his lawyer's performance did not meet a standard of failure that would have changed the trial's result. In the end, while the court affirmed the convictions, it removed the fines that were wrongly imposed, ensuring that Daniel's rights were respected where the trial process fell short.

F-2014-279

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 19, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-279, Cruz-Brizuela appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for new trials with conflict-free counsel. Guevara also appealed his conviction for the same charge, and the court made a similar decision for him. A dissenting opinion was filed. Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were both found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County for having a large amount of cocaine hidden in a truck they were driving. The police had stopped them for a minor traffic issue and, upon inspection, discovered the cocaine in a secret compartment. During the trial, both men claimed they did not know about the drugs, but because they shared the same lawyer, there were concerns about an actual conflict of interest that seemed to affect their defense. The case stemmed from an incident on April 25, 2012, when an officer pulled their truck over. The officer had suspicions about the trip based on the men's log books and their explanations about stops they made along the way. The prosecutor argued that it was more likely that either Cruz-Brizuela or Guevara had placed the cocaine in the trailer during a long stop during their journey. Both men argued that their lawyer’s conflict made it impossible for him to defend them properly, as he could not use certain evidence to benefit one without hurting the other. Because their defense relied on the idea that neither of them knew about the drugs, the conflict prevented their lawyer from arguing effectively. The court found that the actual conflict had indeed affected the counsel's performance and, thus, both convictions were reversed. The judges agreed that it was important for defendants to have lawyers without conflicting interests to ensure a fair trial. The case was remanded for new trials where both Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara could have separate attorneys who could focus on their individual defenses. So, the outcome was that Cruz-Brizuela and Guevara were given another chance to defend themselves against the charges, this time with legal representation that wasn’t hindered by conflicts of interest.

RE-2014-238

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 21, 2015
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2014-238, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the presence of a minor child, driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to carry an insurance verification form. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence but vacated the one year of post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.

M-2014-235

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 3, 2015
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2014-235, Donald Wayne Farino appealed his conviction for Obtaining Cash By False Pretenses and Petit Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and send the case back for a new trial. No one dissented.

F-2014-286

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2015
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-286, Ketcher appealed his conviction for eluding a police officer after two or more felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence but vacated the $5000 fine associated with the felony offense. One judge dissented. Ketcher was found guilty by a jury on several counts, including eluding police, leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a license, and having improper vehicle equipment. He was sentenced to a total of thirty years in prison and received various fines based on his convictions. The main point of his appeal was about the eluding charge, where he argued that the evidence was not strong enough to show he endangered others while trying to escape the police. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including video footage, demonstrated that Ketcher did endanger others. He ran stop signs and drove very fast through neighborhoods, even close to pedestrians. Therefore, the court felt that a reasonable person could find him guilty of the charge beyond doubt. Ketcher also argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury about a lesser charge for eluding. However, the court stated that the evidence did not support this request, so they denied it. Additionally, the court acknowledged a mistake in how the jury was told about fines for the felony eluding charge. It should have been clear that the jury had the choice to impose a fine rather than it being mandatory. Because of this, they removed the $5000 fine from Ketcher's sentence. Regarding other claims of unfairness during the trial, the court found no serious problems that damaged Ketcher’s right to a fair trial. They noted that much of what the prosecutor said during the trial was based on evidence presented. Ketcher also claimed his attorney did not do a good job, but since the court found no serious errors during the trial, they did not agree with this claim. The final decision by the court was to uphold the prison sentences but to remove the fine, allowing them to issue their final ruling without more delays.

C-2014-254

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 13, 2015
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-254, the petitioner appealed his conviction for embezzling over $25,000. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling regarding the petitioner's motions, but vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for a new determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. The petitioner, who is William Reeves Cathey, was accused of embezzlement by the state. He pleaded guilty to the charge in 2012, and his sentencing was delayed multiple times so he could repay the money he took. When his sentencing finally took place in January 2014, he decided to represent himself after dismissing his lawyer due to their illness. The judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, but allowed him to suspend six years of that sentence and ordered him to pay $96,500 in restitution to the victim. Before he was sentenced, the petitioner made several requests to withdraw his guilty plea and to disqualify the District Attorney's office, claiming it was unfair. The court denied these requests. He also claimed that he did not understand the plea agreement because he thought the maximum fine would be much lower than what it was. He felt that the judge had not properly explained the charges to him when he entered his plea and claimed this made his plea involuntary. During the appeal process, the court looked at the petitioner's points. They decided that his concerns about the restitution order were valid. The court found that the lower court had not made it clear how the restitution amount was determined, and they thought that a new hearing was needed to sort this out. The court also rejected all of the petitioner's other arguments. They believed that he had entered his plea knowingly and that his sentence, while long, was not excessively severe. In conclusion, the court confirmed the denial of his motions to withdraw his plea but returned the issue of the restitution amount back to the trial court for further evaluation.

SR-2013-1187

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 12, 2014
Post category:SR

In OCCA case No. SR-2013-1187, the State appealed the conviction of Carson for lewd molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. Carson was charged with six counts of lewd molestation. A jury found him not guilty on three charges and couldn’t make a decision on the other three, which are still unresolved. The appeal centered around whether the district court made the right call when allowing evidence about past sexual abuse involving a different perpetrator. The State argued that this evidence should not have been allowed under a law known as the Rape Shield statute, designed to protect victims by limiting the introduction of their past sexual behavior. The district court, however, let the defense question the victim about these other incidents. The State believed this was a mistake and wanted the court to review the evidence ruling. However, the court decided not to do so. They trust the trial court's judgment on these matters unless there is clear proof of a mistake. The court said the State did not show that the trial court made an error in allowing the evidence. In summary, the OCCA upheld the decision made by the district court, ruling that they acted within their rights, and the case for Carson was allowed to stand as it was.

C-2014-373

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 10, 2014
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2014-373, Jack Eugene Metzger appealed his conviction for multiple charges including First Degree Burglary, Larceny of an Automobile, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (second offense), Eluding a Police Officer, Violation of Protective Order, and Driving Without a Driver's License. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Metzger could withdraw his guilty plea for certain counts but denied the request for others. One judge dissented. Metzger entered a guilty plea for several crimes and was sentenced to serve time in prison along with fines. After his plea, he asked to take it back, saying he hadn’t been fully informed. He raised several issues in his appeal, claiming his pleas were not voluntary, the sentences for some charges were illegal, and he didn’t get help from his lawyers when he needed it. The court looked at whether Metzger's pleas were made knowingly and voluntarily. It noted that mistakes were made when explaining the possible punishments for some of the charges. The court decided that while Metzger did understand a lot, there were significant errors in how he was informed about some counts. Since he didn’t receive the correct information on charges related to driving under the influence, eluding police, and violations of protective orders, his plea for those counts was not properly made. Therefore, he was allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas for those specific counts but not for the burglary or larceny charges. In summary, the court allowed Metzger to take back his guilty plea on the counts where he was not informed correctly about the punishment, but it did not agree with his claims regarding other counts.

RE 2013-0885

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2014
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2013-0885, Lela Mae Goodwin appealed her conviction for violation of her probation due to several reasons, including drug use and not attending treatment. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the revocation of her suspended sentences but ordered the district court to remove a part that imposed post-imprisonment supervision. One judge dissented.